--
Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:52:37 PM PST
From: n...@no6b.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/5/2009 14:24, you wrote:
On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater
access
and a different PL tone for DTMF commands
At 3/6/2009 00:20, you wrote:
I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the
autopatch was active.
Not really an option in my case: extra bandwidth required, some radios
don't decode well when there's a 2nd tone in the CTCSS band.
But it would be nice if amateur
PST
From: n...@no6b.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/6/2009 00:20, you wrote:
I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the
autopatch was active.
Not really an option in my case: extra bandwidth required
At 3/6/2009 12:40, you wrote:
If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level setting,
you won't need any extra bandwidth.
You'll always need more bandwidth than what's needed for a single tone. If
you can turn down the deviation of each tone to, say 300 Hz for a total
: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/6/2009 12:40, you wrote:
If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level
setting,
you won't need any extra bandwidth.
You'll always need more bandwidth than what's needed for a single tone. If
you can turn down the deviation of each
Most of mine do DPL.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like
At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote:
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes
for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
Perhaps this is region dependent. Most radios made for the past several
.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: n...@no6b.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my
older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my
I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS
ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS. Again, I said 'most radios', not all
radios. Yes, many recent models do include CDCSS.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote:
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs
its about time the new 'ham' radios support encode and decode CTCSS (pl)
I hate to have to buy and extra board to support encode
I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have
older radios with out encode
the fun debate about CTCSS and CDCSS
Thanks to the group for a
- Original Message -
From: Rick Szajkowski
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older
radios with out encode...
On Thu
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
its about time the new 'ham' radios support encode and decode CTCSS (pl)
I hate to have to buy and extra board to support encode
I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have
older radios with out encode
*Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have
older radios with out encode...
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote:
I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS
ENCODE, let
aj.grant...@gmail.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
HAHAHAHA Gov't coupons for TS-32s LOL...
I run cross tones... Inverted DPL input, 110.9 PL output for normal
operation, same Inverted DPL input, standard DPL output for special
events/call outs
On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM, MCH wrote:
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for
codes
for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
The last ham rig I bought that didn't have this
At 3/5/2009 14:24, you wrote:
On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater access
and a different PL tone for DTMF commands (including autopatch access).
The repeater generated the normal PL tone for repeater access.
Too bad most amateur grade radios made today don't
What type of radios do you think the old hams are using? ;-
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM, MCH wrote:
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for
codes
for repeaters
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Jason,
The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any,
wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or
PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output of
the repeater different than the input so it's harder to find the DPL code.
Motorola is great about
At 3/4/2009 09:49, you wrote:
I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output
of the repeater different than the input so it s harder to find the DPL
code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it s a lot harder to
hack the repeater if you have two
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes
for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
I would agree CDCSS is more secure for that very reason. I recommended a
customer switch to CDCSS from
Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to
using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I
would try and get some input...
Thanks!
Jason
that's my take.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: j crowe...@yahoo.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:07 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to
using a DPL vs a PL
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
The lack of a harsh squelch tailis usually one of the benefits (as opposed
to PL Reverse Burst)...
But locally, at least in the Amateur realm, it's been implemented ONLY to
prevent access by the general Amateur community...
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:08 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to
using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I
would try and get some input...
Thanks
25 matches
Mail list logo
